tv [untitled] October 9, 2012 4:30am-5:00am PDT
individuals. they are professionals, trying to do their work. but i think there has to be a separation in terms of the different roles. when someone is close to a deal, even the best possible, the analysis on the question of surveying all options should be done by someone else. so that's part of the challenge i have. my concerns remain. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor kim. >> i do want to appreciate the work that went into today's presentation. i want to say i think we need more time. i think the committee is honestly the best place to do that in. i know that out of respect for the mta we move things forward and allow things to be presented during that time period. i'm uncomfortable not having -- this is less about now. the other questions asked
but now to the sfmta about our real estate master plan. i want to get a sense of how this fits in in terms of larger real estate and how it fits into us operating muni at the highest level. i think we all have the same goal. you want the best possible deal so we have as much money coming to front line services as possible. more muni buses, increasing efficiencies, keeping muni fares at the lowest price. all these things come tied in together. so when we put in money to real estate i want to have a good understanding of how this fits into our overall plan so i will motion to continue for one week. i want to be very specific about what i would like to see over that week. i want to say i have the highest respect for mr. risken and ms. boes. i believe there's a lot owas do. i just need to have and
understanding of that process. myself personally to feel comfortable moving this forward to the full board. i'm trying to avoid as much as possible bringing these items that may be controversial to the full board as much as possible, if we have that time. i don't plan on doing it more than that one week. as much information as we can get on the real estate master plan, the net present value of this lease, which you said has been calculated but you didn't have the information before us today, a sense again of the process. supervisor campos said it. it is great to hear from the brokers but i would rather hear from the city and county in terms of our best interest. that is kind of what i'm looking for over the next week. i'm curious. maybe this is a separate
issue because we are not raising tow fees and lease, i'm assuming auto return will stay the same. what we are looking at there, is there consideration for increasing tow? i'm curious actually as to what our tow dollars bring to operating costs for muni. if we have the highest tow cost in the country, is that subsidizing any of our services at all? we get ton ofs of complaints about the cost of towing versus new york city, et cetera, et cetera. i have always understood it that that subsidizes some of our front-line services like muni. maybe i'm wrong about that. but if we are spending this amount on real estate, i just want to get a sense of that cost benefit analysis. >> thank you, supervisor kim. i am supportive of the continuance one week.
i thank all the folks here today. not an easy one. thank you to the brokers, prologis and mta staff for being here and answering a lot of tough questions. i think a lot of good questions were brought up. i think a lot of them are relevant to larger policy questions as to what we are doing with real estate. this is not a unique issue to the mta about how we manage real estate. how it is dealing with space needs in the future would be, including what we are doing with current assets. it is not a unique mta issue. we constantly question the report about, real estate services, the san francisco unified school district about how they are utilizing the property. this is a large issue regarding our real estate assets. that is a larger question. i don't think this committee over this topic will be able to answer that question. that is a bigger issue i think the city needs to take a look at. i want to make that comment. a lot of this was geared
about our assets. i think we deserve a larger and more thorough conversation in the future. when we talk about why it is we couldn't purchase the facility, why is it that we lost out. i know the city was in the process of doing it, trying to acquire that, from my understanding. the simple matter is we are a public agency that moves slower than some of the other entities. we have less to trade with. for example, property and other things. for these inherent reason and multiple boards, we are slower and less nimble to respond to certain deals that come up in the marketplace that happen very quickly. so i think we all need to recognize this so we can blame and point finger about mta about why didn't you pull the trigger earlier but the fact of the matter is we have a slower process, more deliberate process because we are a public entity. i think that is an
important piece to say. in terms of timing, i think that there's questions about what we can get with more time. i'm supportive of the one-week continuance because i think we need clarity around the mtas plans. especially given the fact a draft analysis has already been completed, it seems that is something that could be produced within the week. i think that is something that is reasonable to ask of the committee to get information on. if you didn't have a draft, i would say that probably would be more difficult to do. given you have it, it makes sense. do i think we would be able to get a property -- purchase a property in short order that is cheaper, probably not, given everything we are hearing. it might be possible. i don't think anyone can definitively say we cannot but at the same time it seems unlikely, given the time constraints on the port development work as well, we have a lot of things to consider. i would be supportive of the continuance. i'm very happy to hear very specific things that has
been articulated in terms of what it is this committee wants to hear about. i do think it is important for us to understand the net present value of the leases. and what that means in terms if we were to locate and find a property, frankly. we are kind of doing this exercise of what is net present value of lease amount we are putting forward. what would that mean in terms of purchase price. can we find a property at the purchase price is a whole other separate question that fits the needs we are looking for. the other thing is the master plan, i'm happy to hear about n. terms of process i know other supervisors want to hear about that. that is fine. for me it is less process but net present value and master plan more than anything. on tow fees, i think san francisco has a very, very, very high tow fee already. i know that part of the the budget analyst report has been about whether or not we are recovering enough to pay for this lease at the site. the mta gave a number of
reasons why, including that the space isn't going to be completely used by tow, et cetera. i would be very cautious about increasing the tow fee because it is sittingly high. we have seen so many folks come in with hardships to be able to come back and grab their vehicles. so i would be very concerned about that. i just want to articulate that. i will be supportive of the motion supervisor kim made. supervisor avalos. >> thank you for mentioning the tow fee too. i think we might have the highest tow fee in the country, which is not something we can actually even think about raising. yet i think our being able to make this purchase or lease viable in future years might be precluded on the tow fee. that is something i'm concerned about. i'm prepared to continue the item. i'm not sure -- i think we can get a lot of information but i don't think it is going to change
fundamentally about how i feel about this contract, this deal. it is something that i feel very uncomfortable with. i feel that, you know, we actually had, you know, some opportunity at some point. very small window of opportunity to purchase this property at something comparable to what prologis has been able to do. now we are looking at leasing for an astronomical amount of money compared to the original asking price was. that sits really poorly with me. i know -- i feel like we are a captive audience. we have incredible needs about managing our fleet and our space for the mta. and i feel like we don't have a lot of choices here, what to do. i also think if it is possible to get someone a better deal we should try and get that. i could conceivably vote against this. so in hopes we could
perhaps get a better deal. that was expressed that wasn't possible but there was no guarantee so maybe there is a possibility where there wasn't one that was anticipated. >> thank you, supervisor. so we have a motion on the floor to continue the item for one week. we can do that without objection, thank you. thank you very much. why don't we go to item one, please. >>the clerk: item number one. resolution to authorize recreation and parks department to accept and expend grant in amount of 131,041 from california department of parks and recreations for the twin peeks trail system improvements. >> thank you very much for this item. i believe we have a representative from recreation and parks. >> yes. my name is tony moran. i'm the grant writer and manager for recreation parks capital division. the item before you is a recommendation to board of supervisors to accept and
expend to have conservation fund grant for twin peaks trail project. the legislation also authorizes the director of real estate to regard a deed restriction against the trail portion of the twin peaks property for a period of 20 years. this is one of several trail grants awarded to recreation and parks department to support the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood park bond trail program. this grant will fund improvements to twin peaks trail, making the trail more accessible. reducing erosion and reducing the amount of damage to natural areas. the twin peaks trail project has completed the public outreach. that happened in fall of 2011. the conceptual plan for the improvement was approve bid the recreation and park commission in february of 2012. we expect to go into construction in fall of 2013. so in closing, i'm requesting that the committee recommend to the
board of supervisors to accept and expend to have the conservation fund grant for twin peaks trail and authorize the director of real estate to record a deed restriction on the trail portion of twin peaks property. i'm available if you have any questions. >> thank you. on this item i believe we do not have a budget analyst report so why don't we go to public comment. ♪ twin peaks road take me home ♪ to the budget bringing along ♪ and we need more budget, momma ♪ take me home, country twin peaks road ♪ twin peaks mountain high ♪ bring the budget ♪ twin peaks
mountain high ♪ bring the budget home ♪ >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to comment on item one. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we send this forward with recommendation? okay. we have a motion and we will do this without objection. thank you. item two. >>the clerk: item two, resolution authorizing department of environment to retroactively accept and expend grant in amount of 156,000 from california public utilities commission through pacific gas & electric to reduce and demand reduction of energy in san francisco during 2012. >> thank you. we have guilmo rodriguez from department of environment. >> thank you. guilmo rodriguez from the department. the department requests the committee's recommendation for approval of a & e item
in amount of $156,000 to support the city's energy watch program. since 2010 when the city initiated the energy watch program the departments provided about 5.2 million in incentives for over 1,600 businesses and multifamily buildings in san francisco, resulting in a savings of about $6.8 million annually for energy needs. this $156,000 is an augmentation to our current program. the contract is through the end of this calendar year. it is to support our continued specifically our out days reach program in order to get more subscribers into our overall program. again, it is our outreach services. i will take the opportunity to share with the committee that the department plans to come back in the next few weeks with an additional a & e approximately in the amount of $3 million.
there are a significant amount of interest in san francisco that we have been successful at recruiting. we turn back to the public utilities commission, pg&e requesting additional and we are close to an agreement of bringing in additional dollars to support the ongoing interest on part of property owners in san francisco. with that i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you. a question about whether the department of environment can share with us what the outreach looks like and what has resulted in terms of where people are participating. are we seeing a fairly even spread in terms of home owner participation, more concentrated in certain areas or finding areas to improve outreach? >> certainly. i can speak top line and provide the specific details. the focus on these $156,000 is to increase our target
audience with new homeowners in particular. also increase our online subscribership and the bulk of these dollars to expand our multilanguage capacity to out reach to customers. as you can imagine, looking at san francisco and where the bulk of the early adopters and early subscribers to the program is concentrated in those parts of the city where we have the highest home ownership rates. again, we are looking for individual property owners that can make the decision on the program and it's always been a challenge with respect to large multiunit buildings, finding the property owners, getting them encouraged to participate in the program. but i will come back and give to the committee the specific details of where our concentration is. >> thank you. i believe we do not have a budget analyst report. we will go to public
comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a motion to send the items forward. we can do that without objection. item three. >>the clerk: item three, resolution authorizing department of public works to accept and bs pend a federal grant in amount of $1,381,000 from metropolitan transportation commission for the south of market alleyways improvement project. >> thank you very much. supervisor kim, do you have opening comments on this item? >> no, just want to thank our successor agency and department of public works for working so closely with our office on ensuring as much as the commitments we have made in the neighborhood around infrastructure improvements, whether it is the substation or ally way improvements were able to move forward smoothly. i know it was a lot of work to ensure this happened. glad we were able to do this. the first phase of the improvement plan i thought
went really well. improving pedestrian safety and corridor flow in a neighborhood where we have a lot of large blocks and pedestrian collisions is essential. i'm looking forward to the second phase of this development. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. amanda hirsch from public works. the resolution would authorize dpw to accept and expend 1,381,000 federal congestion management area block grant originally awarded in 2010 to the san francisco redevelopment agency for south of market alleyways improvement project. initially the redevelopment agency planed to contract the work to dpw for design and construction management. however with the dissolution with the redevelopment agency the successor agency has requested to transfer responsibility for the project and grant funds and match funds to dpw. this is recorded in a june 2012 memorandum of understanding between dpw and successor agency.
in august of 2010 the redevelopment agency commission passed a resolution assuring the agency would provide 959,450,000 in non-federal matching funds, creating an enforceable obligation for this project. this accept and expend is the last step required to finalize the transfer of project funds to dpw. here today are the project manager from dpw and a representative of the successor agency. we would be happy by to answer any questions from the board. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, shown on page three of our report, table one, which is on page four, summarizes the $2,340,400 project grant -- total project cost. 2,340,400, then the source of funds are shown in the following table on page
four, table two, coming from the former san francisco redevelopment agency. we list the tax increment bonds, the specific sources of funds. we recommend you approve the resolution. >> thank you. are there members of the publics who wish to speak on item three? seeing none th, is closed. colleagues, can we send this forward with recommendation. so moved. thank you. item four, please. >> resolution authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission general manager enter into a long-term interconnection with pacific gas & electric for solar power project on alvarado elementary pursuant to san francisco charter 918b. >> this is by supervisor wiener who wanted to speak but in his place is andre powers to speak on his
behalf. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this allows the san francisco puc enter agreement with pg&e, first alert project that's already been installed at alvarado elementary, a resolution authorizing that installation came before the board earlier in the year. essentially this would allow for these solar panels to be turned on. john doyle from the puc is here if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. about three years ago the pta at alvarado school was extremely interested in a solar project in terms of educational value for the students. at that time they did approach the puc about doing a project. as a consequence of that, and after a lot of discussion, development and work, we did actually proceed with a project at the alvarado school. it is a 50 kilo watt solar
system. it is actually being completed. we did that in conjunction with dpw. the project is completed. it is not connected to the grid. the purpose of this resolution is enter into an agreement, which is a standard interconnection agreement with pg&e. that is pretty much a pro forma standard for solar projects. a standard agreement approve bid the california public utilities commission. actually non-negotiable. so we are asking for your support to be able to have the general manager implement this with pg&e. >> thank you. a quick question for this project. not so much the item before us, but how was it paid for? >> that is paid for out of the power enterprise, department of the p.u.c. we have a capital funding
program for renewable and energy efficiency projects. there is an amount set aside for those. it is actually part of the hetch hetchy revenue, it is paid for out of those funds. >> so this is p.u.c. funding, basically the ratepayer dollars going to pay for the solar project. >> yes, sir. >> is it available for all schools or was this a one-off exception? >> no. we actually entered into a master license agreement with the school district. so there is a program that is available for other schools. this is a ten-year license agreement with the school district, so there is a ten-year window where we can scout out other schools that might be available to do this. unfortunately our funding is limited. we used to have funding around the $6 million a year for renewable projects. it is now declining to
about $1 to $2 million a year range. there will be a limited number of schools we can support. however there is another piece of good news. that is that this transbay cable funds that can also be available. so we will be getting $2 million in revenue, the city will, from the transbay cable project. that can be allocated between energy efficiency and renewable projects. some of those will also be available to do additional schools. we have earmarked a couple schools under that funding, which is thurgood marshal, cesar chavez and downtown high school. between the money we do have from the hetch hetchy and money available from transbay funding we can do more schools. >> in terms of allocations, this is a partnership, we
have efficiency or renewal projects with city facilities as well. how do you sort of all -- allocate that scarce money to get us to be less reliable on energy. >> you mean allocated between schools and other city departments? is that the question? >> right. >> that is a matter of prioritizing projects. so on the renewable side we have potential portfolio projects we are looking at on city properties and the schools. we go through a process there where we look at roofs of buildings of a structurally sound electrical system in the building. support the system and so forth. we come up with a list of buildings. then within that framework, then depending on project and depending on funding we select the project to fund.
>> is it tied into what people pay i want the system? the school pays for energy, i'm guessing. the city pays for energy. it is based on what you put into it or not? >> not necessarily. we have done projects for enterprise departments, like the airport moscone center that pay rates equivalent to pg&e. we have done projects for general fund that pay 3.5 cents or subsidized rate and city hall, which pays nothing for electricity. it isn't necessarily a function of what they pay into the -- what the rate is. the way we work it is that we meet as a solar power. and the department pays for the solar power at the normal rates. alvarado school, for
example, alvarado will pay for the solar power but at the subsidized general fund rate. basically the department is indif rent because they are paying the same amount of money before and after the solar system was installed. >> thank you. >> thank you. do we have a budget analyst report on this item? we do not, i believe. are there any members of the public? seeing none, this is closed. >> i want to give one comment that i have seen this at a couple schools. sometimes the solar panels are placed on a location in the school yard that is incredibly inconvenient for the students. while i don't understand the mechanics and i have been told that is the only location but sometimes in the middle of the play
field. this is the case at marshal. i hope in the placement there's a lot of thoughtfulness is given to the site. do you have a response to that? >> yes. the panels we are placing are on the roof. >> okay. >> there's been another program that pg&e's had where they provided solar panels to schools. i agree with you, typically those are placed in the school yard somewhere. it is a set of solar panels on a pole, right in the middle of where the kids play and totally inconvenient. i agree with you. we are not doing that. >> sorry, great. thank you. supervisor, we have heard and closed public comment. do we have a motion? okay. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation. we can do that without objection. thank you. item five. >>the clerk: item number five, resolution authorizing director of public works to execute an
amendment to construction management service agreement with cooper pugeda management for the laguna honda hospital replace placement program, from 16,196,764 to 16,805,733. >> thank you. who is here to speak on this. representative from dpw. okay. i believe they want us to continue this to next week, since the representative is sick this week. why don't we hold off on the budget analyst until next week. why don't we open this for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item five? seeing none, closed. >> general question on this one. there was increases to this contract. seemed like -- well, from the budget analyst report seems like increases should have come to the